The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1887-07-03

Adams was not the candidate whom majority
Of the electors desired to mako President. 1t
10 also pretty clear that majority OF tho
Federaist members Of the Electoral College
really preferred Plncknoy to Adams. and would
have made the former President II the Southern
electors had foroseen the sweeping dcsertion
OF Pinckney by their New England colleagues.
At the Presidential election OF 1900 the Fed
eralist electors wero true to the tacit agree"
ment under which they had been appointed,
and voted for Adams and @. @. Pinckney ex-
cent q Rhode Island elector. who voted for
Adams and Jay. II Ia noteworthy, showing
the drift OF opinion against conceding right
of option to the Electoral College. that" Charles
O. Pinckney refused to accept the votes OF
South Carolina unless they were also given to
Adams" Here was marked change OF senti-
ment since 1906, when Adams accepted eigh-
teen Now England votes which had been with
held from his co-candidste. Thomas Pfnckney.
There was ostensibly at this time equal good
faith on tho part OF the anti-Federalist electors
from whom, as 1t is we'll known, Jefferson and
Burr received an equal number OF votes.
There is contemporary evidence, however, for
the charge that only the adoption OF q motion
that each elector should vote openly, frustrated
q plan to deprive Jefferson Of one vote In the
New York College.
lation OF the implied pledge which the people
had come to understand bound an elsctor to
simply register the will Of those who had APP
pointed him. Whatever regrets for tho failure
Of this attempt to intcrpose a dsliborative
body between vast body OF voters and the
ultimate selection Of . Chief Magistrate may
DO justified on abstract grounds, the step Is If
reversible A momber OF an Electoral College
still has legal right to designate for Presi-
dent any candidate he pleases; buff his de-
sertion Of his party suflced to turn the scale In
Presidential contest, 1t might excite revo-
luton. Let US pass therefore; to question OF
more practical Importance. namely. the method
of choosing electors, which the States have
constitutional right to determine for them
selves. right which the State Gov
ernments have often exercised to tho COM
plete or partial notification OF the
will OF tho majority. Shall the electors
apportioned to State be chosen by It's
Legislature. or elected on district tickets Ike
its members of the House Of Representatives,
or on general ticket like that with which we
arc now familiar In tho case Of Presidential
electors2 Many Of tho Presidential contests
which have taken place since the forma-
ton OF our Federal Government would have
had different result II any one OF these
three systems had at tho time boon universally
applied. or course It Is understood that. under
the district method Of composing the Electoral
College. while one eector would be voted Tor
in each Congress district, the two electors
at large. corresponding to the two Senators.
could either be chosen on general ticket
or BY the Legislature. Any reader may calcu-
late for himself what would have boon the out
come Of the Presiden' tal election in 1884, 1880.
or 1875 had this historical and entirely legiti-
mate mode Of choosing electors prevailed. Mr..
O'Niel. 1t will be noticed, points out blunder
In statement Of the Fsderalist that the State
Legislatures must in all cases have great
share In the appointment Of President, and
will perhaps, In most cases, Of themselves de-
termine it." Tho Constitution gave Legisla-
turos the power to direct how electors shall
be appointed, and formerly they often con-
strued this provision as II 1t involved the func-
ton OF themselves choosing tho electors; but
Madison was wrong in supposing they would
persist In asserting such right In the teeth Of
public opinion.
In the first Presidential election. Massachu-
sets. Virginia. North Carolina, and Kentucky
followed the district method; Pennsylvania.
New Hampshire, and Maryland the general
ticket system. while Connecticut, New Jersey.
Delaware. South Carolina, and Georgia chose
their electors through the Legislatures. Now
York took No part in this election. owing to a
refusal OF the Senate to 20 into Joint ballot un-
less the Assembly would allow 1t to control
four OF the electoral votes. Such disfran-
chisement Of State was Of itself enough to
condemn the mode Of choosing electors
by tho Legislature. In 1895 there was
some doubt about accepting the cleo
toral votes Of Vermont, because the electors
had boon chosen by the Governor and Council.
l. 81 ,,,sS a. 80
sembly; but Madison favored the counting OF
the votes as substantially expressing the voice
OF the people. on learning that under tho YER
mont Constitution the Governor and twelve
men called Councillors formed tho Upper
House. On this occasion Maryland adopt
ed, and continued for many years afterward,
the district system. while Georgia changed
from the legislative to the general ticket mode
OF election. A curious variation from the three
methods in vogue was in 1895 exhibited In Ten
ressee, where the Legislature had divided the
State into three sections. and appointed speci-
fed persons to choose an electorfor their respec
tive districts. This law was rsenacted In 1900.
Tho mischievous effect OF permitting Lsgls-
latures to choose electors was signally s1sm-
pliHed in 1900. when. as Mr.. O'Nsil points out.
there was reason for believing that the FEEDER
alist campaign was planned on the belief that
Pennsylvania would take no part In the con-
test. In that State a law providing for an cleo
ton by the people on general ticket had ex-
pired by Limitation, and the Legislature would
not renew 1t beoausel the two Houses were
OF opposite political principles. 1t was
not until late In November. and AT
ter many threats on both sides. that
a compromise was finally arranged by which
the Assembly was to choose eight electors and
the Senate seven electors. THUS was the vote
of State bargained away. During more than
a quarter of century the action Of the Spartan
band Of thirteen Senators was held up as q
good argument for o uniform constitutional
provision" In New Hampshire also the method
of election was changed to further tho Feder-
alist intrigues. That State had hitherto adj
hered to the general ticket system. but now the
Federalist Legislature took back from the
people the function Of election and exer-
cised 1t themselves. Even In Massachusetts.
which had followed the district system,
the Federalist leaders caused the electors to be